For readers who haven’t figured this out on their own:
* When we post on Overlawyered about a real or potential lawsuit, it doesn’t necessarily mean we think the case is without merit. We regularly discuss meritorious cases.
* Not infrequently lawsuits we discuss are well founded on existing law, but that existing law is ill-conceived and deserves to be reconsidered. Or both law and lawsuit may make perfect sense, but the level of damages demanded may be excessive or implausible. Or the combatants on one side or both may pursue dubious tactics and theories. Or the media coverage of the case may have been credulous or one-sided. You get the idea.
* Sometimes it’s not clear what if anything either side did wrong in pursuing a dispute, but the case still stands as a monument to the high cost of resolving things through legal process. A recurring example: the family feud over a legacy that ends by consuming the estate in litigation costs.
* We also discuss a certain number of cases that are just plain interesting: they raise novel or non-obvious legal issues, or they shed light on human nature as it manifests itself in legal disputes. And, yes, it does happen on occasion that I take note of a case without being sure what I myself think of it.
* Finally, Ted and I are two different people and don’t always agree with each other.
Sorry if this introduces complexity where people were expecting to find simplicity.
2 Comments
Okay, but who do I sue when I can’t find the simplicity?
Look, Walter, failing to live up to the stereotypes and prejudices of the anti-reform crowd like this is going to cause them considerable distress and discomfort. Expect to be sued accordingly.
FWIW, little enough I suppose, I tend to lean fairly left of center. I also see that business represents that great American Dream we want everyone to have the opportunity to share in. It stands to reason that the junk and lottery-style litigation actively harming businesses are also actively harming all of us.
The ones at the top shouldn’t have to find ways to afford this mess, but even more I worry about the people below them who also pay through reduced employment options, impacts by cost cutting measures, product lines not funded out of fear, etc. It’s the effect on new job creation that bothers me the most – I fail to see how reducing demand for labor below its optimum level is going to be good for labor.
So I agree, we can have and need a justice system that enforces lawful behavior and produces intelligible liability verdicts without creating so much confusion and fear in the markets. And ultimately it will be “the people”, not just markets, who get precisely what we deserve based on our willingness to reform or not.
In the meantime, keep on rockin’, Walter. You too, Ted. Don’t let your detractors slow you down!